I have a problem with altruism.  Does it really exist?  It seems to
me that anything one could call altruistic does have a deeper
motive.  If you do something because it makes you feel good, is it
still altruistic, or is it now selfish?  It seems that no matter 
how deeply it may be buried, there is always the thought of how
it will make you look, or what the recipient of the action will
think, or many other similar trains of thought.

I think most people would call themselves altruistic to a point, but
is it actually posiible?

Anyone care to comment?  I would like to hear opinions, but I'm
sorry if each word is not correct.  I'm not trying to start a big
semantic argument, just find out what people think.

24 responses total.

I remember my atheist years.  Some Christian folk and I got into an
argument because they said that atheists could never be altruistic because
there was no motivation to be good.  Chrisitans, they furthr argued, 
were altruistic because their religion told them to do good.  While it 
is apparent they were using a different definition of altruism, they 
had the argument backwards.  An atheist who does good is doing so for
the reasons you cite.  While many religious folk may do good for that reason 
as well (one would hope), good is also motivated by what the Dieties 
think (within Christianity, it opens the door to heaven; within
Wicca, the good generated comes back three times, etc.).  At any rate, 
though, I think you can make an argument that every act is motivated
in part by egocentrism, but the fact that the good generated by the act
is frequently more work than it's worth indicates an altruistic motivation 
as well.  (E.g.:  giving a homeless person the $5 you were going to 
spend on lunch may give you good feeling, but at the cost of lunch,
which is more filling but less fulfilling.)

As to whether someone could be really altruistic or not, I'm not sure.
Altrusim is along the same lines as being selfless. I often wonder why
people can't see the obvious part of that word: SELF-LESS. Without self.
Putting yourself last in your priorities. That makes no sense to me. The
only way I think someone could be altruistic, or selfless, is to kill
themselves to a certain point. Of course, no one could become completely
selfless or altrustic, as that'd lead to death then. My argument and way
of living, is towards being selfish. There are two forms of being selfish.
One, is where someone does what they *really* want to do. (be it giving to
the bum on the street or not) Another, would be someone who is doing the best
they can to continually deny themselves reality. That is where they are
doing the best job they can, to keep up appearances of how everything they
think *should* be, or *is*.

By the way. I give credit to Ayn Rand, for making it much easier for me to
understand all of this. *grin*

        Self-less does not necessarily mean putting yourself last in
priority.
        We can impart positive energy to the cosmos by doing good deeds.
If our action is truly good, does it matter to who it is done?
Including ourselves?
        I find it ironic that many view putting oneself in potential
danger is viewed as boad as doing it to someone else.  Hence, laws
concerning motorcycle helmets and seatbelst and marijuana.  But
if you are to reverse the logic, that doin something good for oneself
is equal to doing something good for another, they will call you a hedonist.

Last paragraph in 3:  Good point, Variable.

I do my best to do good things for people, including people I don'tknow.
I sometimes do these things while obscuring the source (myself) so 
the person gifted has the option of looking at everyone and saying, 
"Perhaps this person cared enough to do this for me."  Many people
would view this as altruism, especially as I do not usually mention
the things I do to anyone else, either. However, doing these things
makes me feel very good.  Whether it gives me brownie points with
Deity is questionable, but a possible additional motive, depending on
my theological philosophy du jour.  Is this altruism?  Possibly.
Does it matter if it is or isn't?  Not a bit, because I do it for
my internal reward.

I've been feeling overwhelmed a lot lately by all of the things
I've volunteered to do...Granted, being secretary of the golf
league isn't exactly going to make the world a better place, but
I thought I could help make things run smoother...Anyway, I guess
I get a lot of satisfaction from seeing things that I've 
coordinated run smoothly, especially if other people appreciate it.
So I'm also President of my condo association, secretary of my 
local section of the Society of Women Engineers, and have been
coordinating an "Equality Day" conference where I work (300 people
will attend on 27 October).

Some of my friends say I'm just a control freak.

I do get a big rush from things like letting a tired mother with
toddlers go before me in line at the store... :-)

Hello everybody, I'm back. The place smells like being dead for years.

Dear Brenda! There's good news, because altruism has the *name*. I'm not
kidding you: this definition of existence is very useful, and it is true. I'll
try to explain it using this example: You, Brenda Spalding, didn't exist for me
until today,- and yet you existed for your family and friends all this time.
It's easy to be existent and non-existent simultaneously. I can even tell you
that O.J.Simpson the  Fabulous doesn't exist for most inhabitants of the Old
World. Ok. Back to the altruism (I'll use the abbreviation A. from now on). The
definition results in that all the people fall into 3 groups: 1) Those who have
no notion of A. (but may behave like altruists, though unconsciously). 2) Those
who have the notion but prefer not to be altruists. They may pretend being
altruists, but deep in their hearts they know they are not true ones. 3) Those
who know they are true altruists. They are rare(but one of them replied to you
above. I wonder if he was serious.) You see that your initial question needs be
rephrased. Something like these are good questions: "Are there people belonging
to Group 3?", or:" Do all the people have the same notion of A.?", or: "Why do
not people always comply with the idea of A.?", etc. To put a good question is
vital. A good question has more chances to get a good answer. Thus, Brighn
tried to answer not your question, but another one: "Are there some additional
conditions for being an altruist, e.g., being religious?" I hope I have
answered your title question, and bored you enough. I guess you won't rephrase
it no more. Neither would I: it's your question, after all. Goodbye for now.

The first line in #7 should read:
Dear Brenda! There's good news for you: Altruism does exist.
It exists because it has its *name*, because there is a notion of
altruism. I'm not kidding you, etc., etc.
Those who skipped #7 because of this typo, may reread it (*grin*).
(*I'm not malicious*). 

Gee, Vladimir, I guess unicorns exist, then.  I hope I see one soon.  :-)
Seriously, though, I wonder if you're confusing the existence of a 
concept with the existence of an abstract which motivates the concept.
Clearly this opens up a huge philosophical can of worms, since many 
philosophers would say that abstracts don't exist outside of the belief that
they exist (which is a necessary *and* sufficient condition for 
their existence -- this is what I hear you saying.  Have I Misunderstood you?

i thik you guys missed the whole point of the question.  The point was
that if you commit "altruistic" acts because they make you feel good,
are they still altruistic.  The whole definition of altruistic is that
you do somehting with no consideration of personal reward.  I read that
as monetary OR emotional/spiritual.  so here's the crux- can there truly
be altruism if said altruistic acts make you feel good? (Which they
presumably would)>

IMHO, no.
Wait... yes.
Maybe.

Only if your feeling good was not a preconsideration for doing the
act.  

It may happen that someone does something for purely altruisitic
reasons but it wouldn't be nearly impossible to prove.  Society 
would be in a terrible state if we were all truly independent 
contractors without conscience or need to function within the group.

Yes unicorns exist. If you'll see one in a picture, for example,
it would mean that they exist also in the mind of the artist who created it.
Of course unicorns don't graze in the streets of Lancing, MI, but it proofs
nothing. The more we know about a thing (however abstract it is, like 
altruism), the more it emerges into existence. Also, the more we discuss
altruism, the more real it becomes for us. Thus, we've come already to a very
interesting point, i.e., whether the preconsideration of moral reward is
contradictory to pure altruism. It's already better than the initial question.
And it shows how we all assisted at making altruism more existent (for those
who read this  conference). My definition of existence allows a thing to be
more or less existent. Unicorns are less existent than your family cat -- for
you, but your family cat doesn't exist for Mr. Somebody, who has just read a
treatise on unicorns; thus, for him unicorns are much more existent. This
unicorn paradox is reducible to a very old controversy between materialism and
idealism. Neither of these systems can prove its superi- ority; and I use my
definition of existence only because it helps in this particular case of
altruism, and is a useful tool (I hope) in the discussion.  P.S. Mary Remmers
invoked a very interesting topic related to the Contrat social, and thing like
that,- which deserves a separate item.

Hmmm, I tailed back to see what I'd said and found a wouldn't
where there should have been a would.  

I see, Vladimir:  You're being skeptically relativistic.  A thing exists
if somebody has the concept of its existence.  Yes?

Paul: yes and no. A thing may exist even if nobody is aware of it.
Example: a very feeble very distant star that has been never observed
nor put into star catalogs.
I am indeed a sceptic and quite a relativist, and I'm very fond of that
peculiar line of Indian philosophy which states that all the Universe is
but a 999th daydream of Vishnu (or Krishnu?) who is dozing on a huge
lotus flower. Now he dreams of altruists and unicorns, of Paul and 
Vladimir; but nobody knows what exactly will he dream of the next time.
Ain't this concept crazy enough to be plausible?

That sounds reminiscent of the Aboriginal dreamtime (all existence as
we know it is the imaginings of a being on another dimension), as
well as the quandary in Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice
Found There, in which either the Red King or Alice is dreaming everything
and one is therefore the product of the other's imagination, but which 
is real?

Ah, the interconnectedness of it all!

This thread brings back fond memories of when I argued my philosophy prof to
a standstill, arguing that there is no such thing as true altruism, as any
such 'altrustic' acts contain the selfish motive of pleasure for the person
performing the acts...hence, could never be _truly_ *selfless*...
Yes, it feels great to do nice things for other people...if you're deriving
that much pleasure from the act, is that not selfish?

Ah, yes, "The Virture of Selfishness".  A college favorite.

Virtue.

Nietzsche said that the idea of self-less actions was impossible - how could
a self beself-less? Of course there is always a reason for every action that
is self -benficial.  This does not make it bad.  We judge all acts by there
utility, whether we realize it or not.  Don't feel guilty about it.  

Thomas Hobbes.  Based on the laws of individual survival no human being can
commit an act that is not motivated by self-interest and the quest for
power.  It's not wrong to be selfish, but it is impossible not to be.

"Of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself."

 
        Desmond Morris, for all of his shortsightedness, concocted a reasonable
explanation for most altruistic-seeming behaviour in _Manwatching_, arguing
that from a the principle of the Selfish Gene theory, even acts of self-
sacrifice can be genetically beneficial.  I think there is some degree of
truth in that.  While man is capable of performing good for others and 
receiving no good back himself, this kind of behaviour tends not to be
reinforced.

Of sefish acts,
(let's try again)

Of selfish acts,
None greater than this:
Selflessness.

 
  //^@^\\

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss